UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`))
`
`))
`
` Case Nos.
`) IPR2017-01619
`) IPR2017-01620
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` vs.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`
`))
`
` Patent No.
`Patent Owner. ) 8,489,868 B2
`-------------------------- )
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL
`Thursday, August 9, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`Stacey L. Daywalt
`JOB NO. 146156
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 1
`
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`))
`
`))
`
` Case Nos.
`) IPR2017-01619
`) IPR2017-01620
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` vs.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`
`))
`
` Patent No.
`Patent Owner. ) 8,489,868 B2
`-------------------------- )
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL
`Thursday, August 9, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`Stacey L. Daywalt
`JOB NO. 146156
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 1
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Thursday, August 9, 2018
` 1:30 p.m.
`
` PTAB Conference Call, held before
`Administrative Patent Judges Aaron W. Moore,
`Sally C. Medley and Robert J. Weinschenk,
`before Stacey L. Daywalt, a Court Reporter and
`Notary Public of the District of Columbia.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 2
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`(All appearances are telephonic)
`
` SIDLEY AUSTIN
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 1501 K Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: SAMUEL DILLON, ESQ.
` SHARON LEE, ESQ.
`
` PAUL HASTINGS
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 875 15th Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: PHILLIP CITROEN, ESQ.
` JOSEPH PALYS, ESQ.
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 3
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Hi.
`Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Moore.
` Do we have representatives from both
`sides on the line?
` MR. PALYS: Good afternoon, Your
`Honor.
` This is Joseph Palys for Petitioner,
`and I'm joined with Phillip Citroen.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Is the
`Patent Owner on as well?
` MR. DILLON: Good afternoon, Your
`Honor.
` This is Sam Dillon for Patent Owner,
`and with me is Sharon Lee.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
` And we also have a court reporter?
` MR. DILLON: Yes, Your Honor, I do
`believe so. She just said hello earlier.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`right.
` Will the parties, after the call and
`in due course, get the transcript filed as an
`exhibit?
` MR. DILLON: Yes, Your Honor. This
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 4
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`is Sam Dillon for Patent Owner. We will.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
` So also on the line are Judge Medley
`and Judge Weinschenk.
` We are on for IPRs 2017-1619 and
`1620.
` Because Patent Owner requested the
`call, they'll go first, followed by Petitioner,
`and then we'll go back to the Patent Owner.
` So Patent Owner, please proceed.
` MR. DILLON: Thank you, Your Honor.
` So we had requested this call to
`request authorization to file a motion to
`strike certain reply arguments and reply
`evidence in Petitioner's replies in both
`proceedings. The issue in both proceedings is
`essentially the same.
` Petitioner included a certain set of
`evidence with its petition to show the public
`accessibility of the prior art Gong reference.
` Our preliminary response raised
`certain issues with the adequacy of this
`evidence.
` The institution decision found that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 5
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB Conference Call
`the evidence was sufficient for institution.
`And then after institution, Petitioner did not,
`for example, move to submit supplemental
`information to bolster the record.
`So in our Patent Owner responses, we
`raised these arguments again and noted that the
`evidence was, in our opinion, still deficient,
`and under a higher standard of evidence should
`be fatal to their patentability challenges.
`Now, in response in their
`Petitioner's reply, they've included, in
`addition to some arguments responding to our
`specific points, additional evidence that they
`claim supports the conclusion that Gong was
`publicly available prior to the critical date.
`Now, we think that this is improper
`reply evidence for several reasons. First and
`mainly, our argument was that Petitioner had
`failed to advance sufficient evidence to show
`that Gong is a prior art printed publication.
`And they include a kind of a top
`half of their argument that responds to this
`allegation. But then the bottom part, which
`starts: "Additional evidence supports the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 6
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`conclusion that Gong was publicly available
`prior to the critical date," that is just mere
`supplementation. That is not responsive to our
`argument. It is just additional evidence that
`they think will cure any of the deficiencies of
`their original evidence.
` So to consider this evidence which,
`you know, should have been submitted earlier in
`the process to give us a chance to respond to,
`would be prejudicial at this point.
` And of particular note is they
`submitted two reply declarations from
`individuals. And we requested dates for these
`reply declarants, and as of yet have not
`received any response or dates for when we
`might depose them.
` Now, our motion for observations is
`due Monday, so at this point it's just not
`necessarily conceivable that we'll be able to
`depose these two reply declarants, and it's
`because these exhibits were submitted in the
`reply despite Petitioner having the burden on
`this point that we're in this situation.
` Now, just one final point.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 7
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`Petitioner will likely make the argument that
`we've had this evidence for a longer period of
`time than just their reply. They did submit it
`as supplemental evidence shortly after the
`institution decision in response to some of our
`evidentiary objections.
` But supplemental evidence only goes
`to the admissibility of the original evidence.
`It is not substantive evidence in and of
`itself.
` Petitioner wants to submit this
`evidence as substantive evidence with the
`reply, but that changes the nature of their
`reliance on the evidence.
` And when we tried to request the
`deposition of their two declarants, we've
`received no response. And there's just a short
`amount of time between the reply and the due
`date for our motions for observation, and it
`doesn't look like we're going to be able to
`file one because we have no deposition in order
`to observe.
` So that's essentially our points.
`And I'm happy to answer any questions, Your
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 8
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`Honors, but that's, I think, all I had.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
` Let's hear from Petitioner.
` MR. PALYS: Phillip, are you there?
` This is Joseph Palys for Petitioner.
` MR. CITROEN: Yes, I'm here.
` MR. PALYS: Phillip Citroen is going
`to handle this argument. Thank you.
` MR. CITROEN: Yeah, thank you, Joe.
` This is Phillip Citroen on behalf of
`Petitioner Google.
` There were several points raised by
`Patent Owner that I intend to address. And
`I'll just take them in turn.
` So first of all, just kind of as a
`backdrop, the issue here deals with the public
`availability of Gong, which is a textbook which
`we've argued on its face is publicly available.
`And as the Patent Owner has indicated, we've
`submitted evidence with our petition
`establishing the public availability of this
`reference.
` As the Patent Owner also indicated,
`it filed objections after these cases were
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 9
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`instituted with respect to this evidence. And
`in response we served supplemental evidence,
`including the declarations that were identified
`addressing this issue that further established
`the public availability of these -- of the Gong
`reference.
` Now, with this backdrop, we think
`the portions of the replies in the supporting
`evidence identified by the Patent Owner are not
`at all improper, and therefore should not be
`stricken.
` First of all, throughout this
`proceeding Petitioner has maintained the
`position that the Gong textbook was publicly
`available prior to September 21st, 2000. The
`position was first presented in the petition,
`and it's further crystallized in their reply.
` In other words, this isn't a new
`issue. It's not something that the Petitioner
`raised for the first time in its replies.
` While the replies do cite some
`additional evidence that the Patent Owner has
`had since about January, this evidence -- or
`there's no rule precluding the presentation of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 10
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`further corroborating evidence, such as the
`evidence that's at issued here. In fact, the
`Federal Circuit has explained that the
`introduction of new evidence in the course of a
`trial is to be expected, and it certainly was
`expected here.
` In its responses, the Patent Owner
`contested the sufficiency of the evidence
`submitted with the petition regarding the
`public availability of Gong.
` And as a result, it was proper for
`Petitioner to then respond to those arguments
`that were presented in the Patent Owner's
`responses. The objected to arguments and the
`evidence provided in the replies does just
`that. And for that reason the Petitioner
`believes that the Patent Owner's request for
`authorization to move to strike the portions of
`the replies and the evidence that have been
`identified should be rejected.
` And just quickly, Your Honor, if I
`may, I wanted to highlight that this result is
`supported by a number of board decisions
`concerning this very exact issue, and that is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 11
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB Conference Call
`whether the arguments and evidence submitted
`with the reply to show the public availability
`of a reference should be stricken.
`And I think maybe the most relevant
`is probably the Instradent v. Nobel case, which
`is IPR2015-01786, and the relevant papers are
`57 and 106. And I won't get too much into the
`weeds of that case, but just to give a high
`level overview, in that case there was similar
`evidence as at issue here submitted with their
`reply to show the public availability of a
`reference. That evidence included two
`third-party declarations, website printouts and
`e-mails from a co-inventor.
`In that case, the board denied a
`request for authorization and move to strike
`and ultimately relied on the evidence in its
`final written decision to find that the
`reference was publicly available. We believe
`that the rationale that the board used in that
`case also applies here and should be -- and so
`the evidence should be submitted and considered
`in this proceeding.
`And that's just one of several cases
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 12
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`that we saw dealing with this exact issue where
`the board denied a motion to strike and
`considered the evidence. And I won't get into
`the others in detail, but I'll just note them
`for Your Honors to consider if they would like.
` Another is IPR2015-01410, Paper 23;
`IPR2015-00059, Paper 42; and then the last one
`is IPR2016-00840, and that's Paper 44.
` So in contrast, we're not aware of
`any board decisions dealing with this issue
`that actually resulted in arguments or evidence
`being stricken. And the Patent Owner so far
`hasn't identified any today for us or the board
`to consider.
` So for these reasons, we think that
`the Patent Owner's request should be denied.
` And then, if I may, Your Honor, the
`last point, just to address an issue that the
`Patent Owner raised earlier on the call, they
`did ask for the availability of the two
`declarants, and we have been working on that.
`We actually have the availability for one, and
`we are scheduled to talk to the other declarant
`later today to get his availability as well.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 13
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`And we're more than happy to work with the
`Patent Owner to get the depositions completed
`and extend any due dates if we need to get in
`any additional papers related to those
`depositions.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
` When was this evidence first made a
`part of these proceedings?
` MR. CITROEN: So they were served to
`the Patent Owner in January after they filed
`objections to evidence, but they weren't filed
`because there hasn't been any motions to
`exclude filed yet by the Patent Owner.
` So they were entered into -- let me
`correct that -- they were filed as part of our
`replies, but served much earlier, which was
`January of this year.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Patent
`Owner, do you want to respond?
` MR. DILLON: Just very briefly, Your
`Honor.
` So the -- our understanding of the
`issue that was being briefed between the
`parties -- and it is appropriately the topic of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 14
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`Petitioner's reply -- is whether its showing is
`sufficient to prove the public accessibility.
`It is not the case that the issue is whether or
`not this thing is publicly accessible such that
`they can, on a reply, just submit all the
`evidence they can possibly find at that point.
`We think the board case law certainly does not
`support that proposition.
` In terms of the specific cases that
`my colleague has just cited, this is the first
`that they have mentioned any of these cases,
`and they did not mention them in the meet and
`confer process, so I don't have any, off the
`top of my head, specific comments on that.
` But it is certainly the case that
`the board's Practice Guide indicates that there
`is such a thing as improper reply evidence.
`And just evidence that goes to either the broad
`public accessibility issue or the broad issue
`of whether these claims are obvious -- you
`know, not all evidence is proper reply
`evidence, even if it fits in one of those
`buckets. So we would contest that
`characterization.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 15
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
` In terms of the deposition dates, we
`can perhaps work with Petitioner, but it is
`still a situation where submitting this
`evidence in the reply prejudices us based on
`our current motion for observations is due
`Monday. You know, this is the first time
`they've mentioned having dates. We requested
`it over a week ago.
` But we can deal with that -- we can
`deal with those issues with Petitioner,
`assuming they promptly get back to us about
`dates. But we just think it just goes to show
`the prejudice of allowing evidence to be
`submitted as part of the reply.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Well,
`could you have addressed this material in the
`Patent Owner's response?
` MR. DILLON: If we were aware of it
`as being in -- as substantive evidence.
` At the time it was not filed, and it
`was only something that would be at issue if we
`filed a motion to exclude. There was certainly
`no reason for us to address this evidence in
`the Patent Owner response, and so we did not.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 16
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
` But you know, even if the evidence
`had been in existence, Petitioner's arguments
`in the reply related to the evidence were not,
`so that is still also there.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: So
`you're asking us for a motion to strike. Yes?
` MR. DILLON: Yes, Your Honor.
` But I understand that the board has
`very, very different mechanisms for handling
`this, you know, down to and including filing a
`notice that identifies the improper evidence
`for the board's further consideration in the
`final written decision.
` So Patent Owner is happy to let the
`board decide the best way of dealing with this
`situation, but we certainly have requested a
`motion to strike this evidence in argument.
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Would
`you be satisfied instead with a sur-reply
`addressing this evidence after your
`depositions?
` MR. DILLON: If you give me a
`moment, I will confer with my co-counsel real
`quick.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 17
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB Conference Call
`(Recess was taken from 1:44 p.m. to
`
`1:44 p.m.)
`
`MR. DILLON: Hello, Your Honor.
`This is Sam Dillon again.
`I think at this point, given the
`lateness of the proceeding, we would probably
`be of the opinion that a sur-reply just kind of
`sanctions and condones this conduct. I think
`it's more of an issue of whether it's proper
`reply evidence, rather than submitting more
`briefing on the subject.
`You know, I think our position is
`this evidence should have been submitted as
`part of a motion to submit supplemental
`information. There was a mechanism for them to
`do this within the board's rules, and they
`declined to pursue it.
`So I think our position would be a
`motion to strike or some other identification
`of new evidence that we think is improper.
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: If we
`were to allow a motion, what would you be
`looking for in terms of pages and timing?
`MR. DILLON: We could file a likely
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 18
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB Conference Call
`five-page motion within a week, would probably
`be workable on our end.
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE:
`Petitioner, if we file a motion, what would be
`your opinion on length of the brief and timing?
`MR. CITROEN: Hi, Your Honor. This
`is Phillip Citroen for Petitioner.
`We think three pages would be
`sufficient, and an equal amount of time to
`respond as provided to the Patent Owner.
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: So
`three pages for both or three pages for you?
`MR. CITROEN: Three pages for both.
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`All right. Well, do the parties
`have anything else?
`MR. DILLON: Your Honor, this is
`Patent Owner.
`No, we do not. Thank you.
`MR. CITROEN: And nothing more for
`
`Petitioner.
`
`right.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`And do my colleagues have any
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 20
`
`PTAB Conference Call
`
`questions?
`
`I will take that as a no.
`That being the case, we will take
`the matter under advisement, and we will issue
`an order shortly.
`MR. DILLON: Okay. Thank you, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`you.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Thank
`
`MR. CITROEN: Thank you.
`(Time Noted: 1:47 p.m.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 21
`
`District of Columbia, to wit:
`I, Stacey L. Daywalt, a Notary
`Public of the District of Columbia, do hereby
`certify that the proceedings were recorded
`stenographically by me and this transcript is a
`true record of the proceedings.
`I further certify that I am not of
`counsel to any of the parties, nor an employee
`of counsel, nor related to any of the parties,
`nor in any way interested in the outcome of
`this action.
`As witness my hand and Notarial Seal
`this 21st day of August, 2018.
`
`-------------------------------------
`Stacey L. Daywalt, Notary Public
`My Commission Expires: 4/14/2021
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Google LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2017-01620, Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, p. 21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
